"not bad" is an inherent comparison (there is no magic "good" number at a circuit, there is only what others run and what you run)...only you have nothing to compare it to, so it doesn't make any sense to label a lap "not bad"

If another car/driver can do that lap a second and a half faster, does that lap time still look "not bad?" Same goes with any long run/stint. Losing two seconds over a 12 lap run might not be "not bad" until you find out that another car can do a 12 lap run with the same times and 10 laps more fuel on board.

Haribo, the Merc's times don't mean anything at the moment until everyone is running in the same conditions at the same time with similar levels of fuel. That won't happen until Oz.

Hamilton may only have been running with 19 laps of fuel for his 18 lap stint. Button/Any of the others could have been running 50 laps fuel for a 10 lap stint. Or like Johnston said they could have been doing aero runs and the average lap times or lap stints meaningless for pure pace. There are too many variables to draw a decent conclusion from the running today.

Whatever the others have done the times are not absolute meaninglessA 1.23 on medium tyres, with about 20 laps of fuel is not bad, regardless what all others did.It does not mean Mercedes is the fastest car, but it's not too bad

How do you know? What if another team could have shaved 2 seconds off that time with the same fuel and tyres? You just don't have a clue if it was a great lap not in today's conditions.

2 sec? Really?Doing a 1.21. 3 with 20 laps fuel on board on medium tyres on a track wich the rain has washed the rubber of the last days away? I doubt any team could have done it.Remember the fastest times of the whole 4 days was 1.21. 8, on softs on very short stintsmaybe Perez & Alonso where not on fumes as they made their fast laps, but I doubt they done it with full tanks & the conditions on their runs have been better than today

Of coures it's highly possible RBR, or McLaren could maybe have been a bit faster than the Mercedes, but not this much. If they would have been able to be 2 sec faster than 1. 23.3, a 1.21, their qualy time on medium tyres , would have been 1.19.3 ( with 45l less fuel)The fastest time at Q3 last year was a 1.21. 7 . I don't think any team is alrready 2 sec faster than last year

There is no indication that it isn't legal, but it isn't required to test in legal trim, so you never know. Any of the cars could have bits that will be deemed illegal by the time the green flag flies in Melbourne. Its just another example of an unknown factor that makes it impossible to compare times in a meaningful way.

There is no indication that it isn't legal, but it isn't required to test in legal trim, so you never know. Any of the cars could have bits that will be deemed illegal by the time the green flag flies in Melbourne. Its just another example of an unknown factor that makes it impossible to compare times in a meaningful way.

Not impossible for somebody who knows what to look for, going into all of the last 5 seasons and probably beyond the analysis by good writers has shown the pecking order very well.

The big exception is Mclaren in 2011 too, but that was down to testing with the octopus exhaust and being so much slower until they dropped it for Melbourne.

There is no indication that it isn't legal, but it isn't required to test in legal trim, so you never know. Any of the cars could have bits that will be deemed illegal by the time the green flag flies in Melbourne. Its just another example of an unknown factor that makes it impossible to compare times in a meaningful way.

Not impossible for somebody who knows what to look for, going into all of the last 5 seasons and probably beyond the analysis by good writers has shown the pecking order very well.

The big exception is Mclaren in 2011 too, but that was down to testing with the octopus exhaust and being so much slower until they dropped it for Melbourne.

But in reality what would be the benefit in testing in illegal trim ? The teams are preparing and gaining insight for the up and coming season with its new rules and regulations , surely pretending that your car is faster than it is by doing fast laps in testing on illegal trim would simply make the other teams up their game and you would have learnt nothing .

If a team breaks cover on a completely different car next thursday, trying to rationalize the data from prior test days is impossible for outsiders - you don't know the correlation like the team does. And that's not like, totally out of the realm of possibility. Further, how many people actually go back and check to see if the analysts were right once we're into the season? It also doesn't matter if they are right about the first race, because the development race from then on changes everything anyway.

RE: testing illegal parts - you could be running something that is right on the line, hiding it and hoping to use it as long as you can before someone makes a big deal about it and it becomes illegal, or waiting to hear on a clarification from the FIA. The FIA doesn't make a habit of publishing everything, so there could be many things in the works right now. We didn't really hear about the FIA deeming the original version of the RBR 2012 exhaust illegal, for example. I didn't mean they are likely to be running a part they know to be illegal.

If a team breaks cover on a completely different car next thursday, trying to rationalize the data from prior test days is impossible for outsiders - you don't know the correlation like the team does. And that's not like, totally out of the realm of possibility. Further, how many people actually go back and check to see if the analysts were right once we're into the season? It also doesn't matter if they are right about the first race, because the development race from then on changes everything anyway.

RE: testing illegal parts - you could be running something that is right on the line, hiding it and hoping to use it as long as you can before someone makes a big deal about it and it becomes illegal, or waiting to hear on a clarification from the FIA. The FIA doesn't make a habit of publishing everything, so there could be many things in the works right now. We didn't really hear about the FIA deeming the original version of the RBR 2012 exhaust illegal, for example. I didn't mean they are likely to be running a part they know to be illegal.

I agree it is best to analyse after all the testing.

But saying it does not matter in Australia is nonsense, the pole sitter in Australia won the title every year from 2001-2004 and 2006-2011. 2005 it rained for qualifying and Alonso got caught out but his team mate got pole. 10/11 years. 11/11 for constructor on pole winning the WDC that year.

No coincidence. Although last years tyre lottery and 7 winners from 7 saw Mclaren have an early advantage over one lap.

Re: who goes back and checks. I remember the analyse as I do a lot of pre-season and in season betting based on it. I've also been on this board over 10 years so have been through the "its only testing" thing over 10 times here.

Why should it not have been legal?There is nothing there to suggest it!

Because sometimes teams run what would be illegal parts for evaluation to try and make a legal version. Because the illegal one is a simpler solution just for evaluation purposes, no point making a complicated convoluted part that might never see a race.

Only have to look at Caterham and williams running the supposed illegal bits.

it's not been unknown for teams to run light purposefully to set good times.

Until the cars get scrutinised in Melbourne we don't know if any cars are legal or not.

Just because it has not been suggested doesn't mean it's not happening. Not everything can be seen by reporters. In F1 anything can be happening.

But in reality what would be the benefit in testing in illegal trim ? The teams are preparing and gaining insight for the up and coming season with its new rules and regulations , surely pretending that your car is faster than it is by doing fast laps in testing on illegal trim would simply make the other teams up their game and you would have learnt nothing .

As I said in my previous post to evaluate an idea before making a more complicated legal version. And this isn't just a test thing teams have done it in Friday Practices too.

Or to attract Sponsors by topping the sheets.

Look at Caterham and Williams FIA have said bits are illegal and they are still running them.

Why should it not have been legal?There is nothing there to suggest it!

Because sometimes teams run what would be illegal parts for evaluation to try and make a legal version. Because the illegal one is a simpler solution just for evaluation purposes, no point making a complicated convoluted part that might never see a race.

Only have to look at Caterham and williams running the supposed illegal bits.

it's not been unknown for teams to run light purposefully to set good times.

Until the cars get scrutinised in Melbourne we don't know if any cars are legal or not.

Just because it has not been suggested doesn't mean it's not happening. Not everything can be seen by reporters. In F1 anything can be happening.

Just to add didn't McLaren run the 08 spec wing on their 09 car for down force tests?

Why should it not have been legal?There is nothing there to suggest it!

Because sometimes teams run what would be illegal parts for evaluation to try and make a legal version. Because the illegal one is a simpler solution just for evaluation purposes, no point making a complicated convoluted part that might never see a race.

Only have to look at Caterham and williams running the supposed illegal bits.

it's not been unknown for teams to run light purposefully to set good times.

Until the cars get scrutinised in Melbourne we don't know if any cars are legal or not.

Just because it has not been suggested doesn't mean it's not happening. Not everything can be seen by reporters. In F1 anything can be happening.

It absolutely not in the interest of AMGMercedes to run underweight for show.They don't need new sponsors/investors for the season, and they seriously have to improve their performance, so there is no reason for "showboating" for them

1) Rosberg says he thinks the car will be capable of wins, Hamilton says the opposite. What?

One would have to presume that Lewis is aware any comments he makes will deconstructed with far greater scrutiny than those of Nico. And expectations from others are probably higher. I guess he's just managing expectation. His, and those of all the vultures.

The explanation is simple.Ross Brawn called in both drivers and said look guys the good news is the team have developed an absolute rocket ship for you guys. The bad news is that there's so many guys involved with its development that we don't have a clue why its so quick. So until we know both of you please down play it as a bit of a growler.

Both drivers nodded their heads but Ross didnt notice that Nico was noding his head listening to his ipod and hadnt heard a word

Why should it not have been legal?There is nothing there to suggest it!

Because sometimes teams run what would be illegal parts for evaluation to try and make a legal version. Because the illegal one is a simpler solution just for evaluation purposes, no point making a complicated convoluted part that might never see a race.

Only have to look at Caterham and williams running the supposed illegal bits.

it's not been unknown for teams to run light purposefully to set good times.

Until the cars get scrutinised in Melbourne we don't know if any cars are legal or not.

Just because it has not been suggested doesn't mean it's not happening. Not everything can be seen by reporters. In F1 anything can be happening.

It absolutely not in the interest of AMGMercedes to run underweight for show.They don't need new sponsors/investors for the season, and they seriously have to improve their performance, so there is no reason for "showboating" for them

No but it's only one of 101 reasons why the times are meaningless.

Plus as for sponsors yes MB do need them just like any other team. My understanding of the MB set up is they have a figure set by MB which is a minimum figure that MB will pay up to incase of any short fall in sponsorship.

The report I read was that it was 150mill If they only raise 100 mill MB will pay 50. If they raise 75mill MB will pay another 75mill, if the raise 149mill MB pay 1 mill and so on and so forth. MB will however NOT go over 150mill. So if MB-F1 team want to compete financially with Red Bull Ferrari and McLaren then yes they do need sponsorship because without it they are around 50mill short.

Mercedes Benz are not throwing the money into the team . So if they want to compete yes they do need sponsorship just like any other team in F1 why else do you think they have the new Blackberry logos on the overalls and the cars? Because it looks pretty? .

If a team breaks cover on a completely different car next thursday, trying to rationalize the data from prior test days is impossible for outsiders - you don't know the correlation like the team does. And that's not like, totally out of the realm of possibility. Further, how many people actually go back and check to see if the analysts were right once we're into the season? It also doesn't matter if they are right about the first race, because the development race from then on changes everything anyway.

RE: testing illegal parts - you could be running something that is right on the line, hiding it and hoping to use it as long as you can before someone makes a big deal about it and it becomes illegal, or waiting to hear on a clarification from the FIA. The FIA doesn't make a habit of publishing everything, so there could be many things in the works right now. We didn't really hear about the FIA deeming the original version of the RBR 2012 exhaust illegal, for example. I didn't mean they are likely to be running a part they know to be illegal.

I agree it is best to analyse after all the testing.

But saying it does not matter in Australia is nonsense, the pole sitter in Australia won the title every year from 2001-2004 and 2006-2011. 2005 it rained for qualifying and Alonso got caught out but his team mate got pole. 10/11 years. 11/11 for constructor on pole winning the WDC that year.

No coincidence. Although last years tyre lottery and 7 winners from 7 saw Mclaren have an early advantage over one lap.

Re: who goes back and checks. I remember the analyse as I do a lot of pre-season and in season betting based on it. I've also been on this board over 10 years so have been through the "its only testing" thing over 10 times here.

I think that is something of a coincidence. You would expect the non-polesitter to have won more times than that, it just hasn't happened.

If a team breaks cover on a completely different car next thursday, trying to rationalize the data from prior test days is impossible for outsiders - you don't know the correlation like the team does. And that's not like, totally out of the realm of possibility. Further, how many people actually go back and check to see if the analysts were right once we're into the season? It also doesn't matter if they are right about the first race, because the development race from then on changes everything anyway.

RE: testing illegal parts - you could be running something that is right on the line, hiding it and hoping to use it as long as you can before someone makes a big deal about it and it becomes illegal, or waiting to hear on a clarification from the FIA. The FIA doesn't make a habit of publishing everything, so there could be many things in the works right now. We didn't really hear about the FIA deeming the original version of the RBR 2012 exhaust illegal, for example. I didn't mean they are likely to be running a part they know to be illegal.

I agree it is best to analyse after all the testing.

But saying it does not matter in Australia is nonsense, the pole sitter in Australia won the title every year from 2001-2004 and 2006-2011. 2005 it rained for qualifying and Alonso got caught out but his team mate got pole. 10/11 years. 11/11 for constructor on pole winning the WDC that year.

No coincidence. Although last years tyre lottery and 7 winners from 7 saw Mclaren have an early advantage over one lap.

Re: who goes back and checks. I remember the analyse as I do a lot of pre-season and in season betting based on it. I've also been on this board over 10 years so have been through the "its only testing" thing over 10 times here.

I think that is something of a coincidence. You would expect the non-polesitter to have won more times than that, it just hasn't happened.

Thats not really the point though. It is not a coincidence that a car that is very quick in Australlia tends to win the championship therefore it matters a huge amount that a car is quick straight away.

Well, last year's quickest car in Australia, with clear monopole on the front row, failed - for a certain amount of reasons - to even enter the final stage of battle. You know who I mean, for sure. Now, I'm not going to open the discussion as to what/why/who/because yada-yada... or we'll never hear the end of it, but I'm just saying it could happen again. (and I pray this year it should happen to RBR).

This is from the Hamilton sandbagging thread but I didn't want to be accused of derailing it so I've took Schuis post and quoted ithere to makea bit more sense with the train of thought.

SchumieRules wrote:

We have teams to deliberately fail equipment just to test their limits, like Ferrari did with their exhaust the other day, how can anybody get conclusions from these tests? To us it would look like Ferrari is a piece of dog poo, for Ferrari it was information.

I was actually wondering if any of the teams have turned the wick up on the Engine management side to see how far they can push the engines with the new exhausts.

We all know the coanda costs HP with a limit on engines during the season I wonder if anyone have tried to claw the lost HP back and then stripped the engine to look at the affects to see if they think they will last the time. .

Why should it not have been legal?There is nothing there to suggest it!

Because sometimes teams run what would be illegal parts for evaluation to try and make a legal version. Because the illegal one is a simpler solution just for evaluation purposes, no point making a complicated convoluted part that might never see a race.

Only have to look at Caterham and williams running the supposed illegal bits.

it's not been unknown for teams to run light purposefully to set good times.

Until the cars get scrutinised in Melbourne we don't know if any cars are legal or not.

Just because it has not been suggested doesn't mean it's not happening. Not everything can be seen by reporters. In F1 anything can be happening.

It absolutely not in the interest of AMGMercedes to run underweight for show.They don't need new sponsors/investors for the season, and they seriously have to improve their performance, so there is no reason for "showboating" for them

No but it's only one of 101 reasons why the times are meaningless.

Plus as for sponsors yes MB do need them just like any other team. My understanding of the MB set up is they have a figure set by MB which is a minimum figure that MB will pay up to incase of any short fall in sponsorship.

The report I read was that it was 150mill If they only raise 100 mill MB will pay 50. If they raise 75mill MB will pay another 75mill, if the raise 149mill MB pay 1 mill and so on and so forth. MB will however NOT go over 150mill. So if MB-F1 team want to compete financially with Red Bull Ferrari and McLaren then yes they do need sponsorship because without it they are around 50mill short.

Mercedes Benz are not throwing the money into the team . So if they want to compete yes they do need sponsorship just like any other team in F1 why else do you think they have the new Blackberry logos on the overalls and the cars? Because it looks pretty? .

You point was some teams run underweight to attract sponsors at tests. This is something Mercedes won't do.

This is from the Hamilton sandbagging thread but I didn't want to be accused of derailing it so I've took Schuis post and quoted ithere to makea bit more sense with the train of thought.

SchumieRules wrote:

We have teams to deliberately fail equipment just to test their limits, like Ferrari did with their exhaust the other day, how can anybody get conclusions from these tests? To us it would look like Ferrari is a piece of dog poo, for Ferrari it was information.

I was actually wondering if any of the teams have turned the wick up on the Engine management side to see how far they can push the engines with the new exhausts.

We all know the coanda costs HP with a limit on engines during the season I wonder if anyone have tried to claw the lost HP back and then stripped the engine to look at the affects to see if they think they will last the time. .

I would have thought all the engine 'destruction' tests would be done on the test bed/dyno type set up - where they can run them hot/cold; rich/lean, etc, etc - basically until failure?Edit - meaning that on the test bed - they can run 'controlled' conditions!

You point was some teams run underweight to attract sponsors at tests. This is something Mercedes won't do.

How do you know, been in a board meeting in Stuttgart or with Tot and Brawn lately?

Anyway I didn't say they were are they did. I only used that as a known example of why teams are meaningless.

Thing is unless you are part of the team for all you know they were running a 3l engine on NoS .

They do not need new sponsors so urgently that they would run underweight to fake some timesWhat would be the benefit of it?If they wanted they could have put soft tyres on& run on fumes at one day of the tests

This is from the Hamilton sandbagging thread but I didn't want to be accused of derailing it so I've took Schuis post and quoted ithere to makea bit more sense with the train of thought.

SchumieRules wrote:

We have teams to deliberately fail equipment just to test their limits, like Ferrari did with their exhaust the other day, how can anybody get conclusions from these tests? To us it would look like Ferrari is a piece of dog poo, for Ferrari it was information.

I was actually wondering if any of the teams have turned the wick up on the Engine management side to see how far they can push the engines with the new exhausts.

We all know the coanda costs HP with a limit on engines during the season I wonder if anyone have tried to claw the lost HP back and then stripped the engine to look at the affects to see if they think they will last the time. .

I would have thought all the engine 'destruction' tests would be done on the test bed/dyno type set up - where they can run them hot/cold; rich/lean, etc, etc - basically until failure?Edit - meaning that on the test bed - they can run 'controlled' conditions!

You can't reproduce real world conditions on a dyno run, there's no G force, kerb hopping, ram air effects etc etc. There was speculation that the fuel pump failure on the Mclarens last year was due to engine movement over the kerbs in relation to the rigidly mounted fuel tank, this wouldn't show up on a dyno test for example.

_________________o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.

This is from the Hamilton sandbagging thread but I didn't want to be accused of derailing it so I've took Schuis post and quoted ithere to makea bit more sense with the train of thought.

SchumieRules wrote:

We have teams to deliberately fail equipment just to test their limits, like Ferrari did with their exhaust the other day, how can anybody get conclusions from these tests? To us it would look like Ferrari is a piece of dog poo, for Ferrari it was information.

I was actually wondering if any of the teams have turned the wick up on the Engine management side to see how far they can push the engines with the new exhausts.

We all know the coanda costs HP with a limit on engines during the season I wonder if anyone have tried to claw the lost HP back and then stripped the engine to look at the affects to see if they think they will last the time. .

I would have thought all the engine 'destruction' tests would be done on the test bed/dyno type set up - where they can run them hot/cold; rich/lean, etc, etc - basically until failure?Edit - meaning that on the test bed - they can run 'controlled' conditions!

You can't reproduce real world conditions on a dyno run, there's no G force, kerb hopping, ram air effects etc etc. There was speculation that the fuel pump failure on the Mclarens last year was due to engine movement over the kerbs in relation to the rigidly mounted fuel tank, this wouldn't show up on a dyno test for example.

Correct - but equally - you cannot simulate say, overheating or long run lean/rich running at many laps of constant pace during testing! You can hardly control the outside temperature at a test, for example? Hence, my edit to remind folk that for proper testing - you need controlled conditions, or at least for the ones you want to 'control'.

F1 engines are sometimes run on jigs that vibrate on hydraulics and the amount of air entering it can be adjusted to mimic the effect of a car speeding up our showing down. This is done in relation to the revs the engine is producing. It's not perfect but a lot better than it used to be.

But in reality what would be the benefit in testing in illegal trim ? The teams are preparing and gaining insight for the up and coming season with its new rules and regulations , surely pretending that your car is faster than it is by doing fast laps in testing on illegal trim would simply make the other teams up their game and you would have learnt nothing .

As I said in my previous post to evaluate an idea before making a more complicated legal version. And this isn't just a test thing teams have done it in Friday Practices too.

Or to attract Sponsors by topping the sheets.

Look at Caterham and Williams FIA have said bits are illegal and they are still running them.

Maybe but then it makes even less sense this year as the cars will be totally different next year with the new engines . Caterham and Williams were probably hoping to flirt with the rules Red bull style but were pipped at the post so to speak as opposed to several race wins into the season !!

If a team breaks cover on a completely different car next thursday, trying to rationalize the data from prior test days is impossible for outsiders - you don't know the correlation like the team does. And that's not like, totally out of the realm of possibility. Further, how many people actually go back and check to see if the analysts were right once we're into the season? It also doesn't matter if they are right about the first race, because the development race from then on changes everything anyway.

RE: testing illegal parts - you could be running something that is right on the line, hiding it and hoping to use it as long as you can before someone makes a big deal about it and it becomes illegal, or waiting to hear on a clarification from the FIA. The FIA doesn't make a habit of publishing everything, so there could be many things in the works right now. We didn't really hear about the FIA deeming the original version of the RBR 2012 exhaust illegal, for example. I didn't mean they are likely to be running a part they know to be illegal.

I agree it is best to analyse after all the testing.

But saying it does not matter in Australia is nonsense, the pole sitter in Australia won the title every year from 2001-2004 and 2006-2011. 2005 it rained for qualifying and Alonso got caught out but his team mate got pole. 10/11 years. 11/11 for constructor on pole winning the WDC that year.

No coincidence. Although last years tyre lottery and 7 winners from 7 saw Mclaren have an early advantage over one lap.

Re: who goes back and checks. I remember the analyse as I do a lot of pre-season and in season betting based on it. I've also been on this board over 10 years so have been through the "its only testing" thing over 10 times here.

I think that is something of a coincidence. You would expect the non-polesitter to have won more times than that, it just hasn't happened.

Thats not really the point though. It is not a coincidence that a car that is very quick in Australlia tends to win the championship therefore it matters a huge amount that a car is quick straight away.

Its actually the opposite of a coincidence and highlights that a good car around Australia is a good car for the season. The same statistic holds for pole at Spain and Spain is the biggest test for a modern F1 car with its high speed corners that are all about aerodynamics. Go well in Spain and you are set for the championship with the exception of last year were it was all about tyre management in the first half of the year and normal rules went out the window.

2012 and 2000, the years the statistic does not hold for both drivers could have have won the title if they had better reliability too. Hakkinen and Lewis had more reliability issues than their rivals in those respective years. Obviously a pole lap at race one can not account for reliability over a season.

So in reality, RAI is the only one who looks worse now than last year (and I don't think that's even accurate given how little running he was able to do last week). There are obviously tons of other factors to consider, and other conclusions to draw, but the main point is: don't worry so much about the tire deg being wildly more than it was before, it might drop off more quickly but its ultimately resulting in less change over a stint than it used to. Instead of being able to run 15 laps within a couple of tenths of each other and then having the time drop off several seconds, they're dropping steadily.

I have more coming, including an update to the graph at the conclusion of Barca T2.

hey ash do you think you could provide the lap times of anyone through their first lap to their final lap on a set of tyres to see the pattern of degradation they experience. Maybe even the lap time progression of a couple of teams for comparison if you know what i mean, pretty bad at explaining clearly what im looking for, but basically a back to back tyre deg chart would be cool, especially of the medium tyre as i am interested about that most

You point was some teams run underweight to attract sponsors at tests. This is something Mercedes won't do.

How do you know, been in a board meeting in Stuttgart or with Tot and Brawn lately?

Anyway I didn't say they were are they did. I only used that as a known example of why teams are meaningless.

Thing is unless you are part of the team for all you know they were running a 3l engine on NoS .

They do not need new sponsors so urgently that they would run underweight to fake some timesWhat would be the benefit of it?If they wanted they could have put soft tyres on& run on fumes at one day of the tests